Ron Paul > Gary Johnson > Barack Obama > Mitt Romney

I'm sorry. I know you said to leave others out of it, but you still get to see which one I prefer more out of the two. Both Obama and Romney are pretty much the same person when it comes to most views even if they are in different parties, but Obama gets a slight edge because he doesn't seem like as big of a "flip flopper" and hasn't lied as much. Both are terrible candidates though and I will never support either one of them.

Comment removed due to spurge hacking my account.

Why would they care about Bachman? She wasn't a Swedish citizen when she was running for president. Had she been, I'm sure it would have been another story entirely.  What happened in 2008 that would discourage him from running? I did a quick check on Wiki and all I could find was that he was in the running to maybe be the running mate. And he chose to sit out this election so he could run for governorship again. 

That really didn't seem to bother anyone when Santorum tried that tactic. Romney has the nice advantage of being a pretty liberal republican. So his past will likely grab some of the disenfranchised Democrats, and independents. While having that huge chunk of Repub voters that will vote for him just because he isn't Obama. 

The President proposes a budget, the House then takes up the budget.  If the party in opposition doesn't like the budget, they will either work with the President or the Senate before any voting takes place to come up with a compromise budget.  In some cases, the House will vote for a budget and the Senate will vote for their own, then work in conference to come up with a compromise. 

Democrats want some military spending cuts, but what they want more, which the Republican's are opposed to, are tax increases on the wealthiest 2% of American's (a tax increase to 1999 levels for anyone individually making $250,000 or more).  Republican's on the otherhand want to cut federal assistance programs.  The fact of the matter is, that the compromise for the 2012 budget that both the House and Senate voted for would cut funding equally to the military and assistance programs if the Super Commitee couldn't come up with a compromise solution of cuts for the 2012 budget.  So what you have right now are the Republicans in the House voting to sequester the 2012 budget rule because they didn't get their way 100%.  They won't allow any tax increases no matter how much sense and how much of a benefit they will have on the economy.

You might recall that last Summer, in order to get Republican approval for his Budget, Obama actually offer to cut MORE in assistance programs than what Republican's had proposed in their own budget, just so he could get the tax rates rolled back to 1999 levels on the top 2%.  Republican's would have been given a significant reduction in medicare/welfare spending had they taken that deal, but they threw it away. 

Republican's believe that defeat at all cost is a win, but the reality is that for the majority of the country, those in the center and to the left, they see what the Republican's are doing as ridiculously crazy.  Rather than compromise for what's best for the country, they're doing what politically best for themselves, and in the end making it more difficult to fix the situation with the economy. 

Michigan was the first State in the country to be hit by the recession, it actually started in 2000/2001 in Michigan.  The last two years of John Engler's administration.  For four years under a Democratic governor, Michigan went through budget, spending, and cuts to the size of government.  Lucrative tax cuts were given to businesses to either come to Michigan or stay in Michigan and do business.  Several movies in fact were made in Michigan during the time because of those tax cuts.  At no time though, did employment increase.  The Republican administration under Rick Snyder reported that in 2007, Michigan's recession had ended.  For four more years there was no significant increase in hiring.

What happened?  The US Chamber of Commerce convinced businesses not to hire in the state, so as to damage the credibility of the Granholm administration and Democrats, which they were successful in doing.  Despite the fact that during the entire time a Democratic governor was in control, and the Dems controlled the Senate or House (can't remember which chamber), they compromised, cut spending, and reduced the size of the government, never once raising taxes, never once not providing services, nor ever having a deficit or requiring fuzzy accounting as the Republican's did in 2001 and 2002.

What did Republican's do almost immediately once they got power, raised taxes. 

I hate politicians who swing about depending on the political wind.

It's one thing I've got to give Ron Paul - I may not have always agreed with his positions but he almost always stuck to them. He was the only consistent person in the Republican primary.

You can find tons of clips of Ron Paul from the late 70s and early 80s and he says the exact same things he does now. People back then didn't understand the issues of the federal reserve and sound money, and didn't see the military industrial complex as such a big issue and the loss of personal liberty. This stuff has all taken center stage now and even the mainstream candidates have to address these issues now.

Legally there isn't anything wrong with holding dual citizenship.  The only question is whether or not a politician could, simply because as a dual citizen you have the obligation to both nations to follow and adhere to the rules of both countries.

It might have been in 2010, Jindal did the follow-up to the State of the Union address.  He didn't do well, and since then has kind of disappeared from the national spotlight.

In the Republican Primaries it isn't as important as it in during the General Election.  Though I don't seem to recall Santorum flip-flopping, I do recall him saying some pretty outrageous stuff.  That being said, it'll be used against him like it was used against John Kerry in 2004.

As to Romney's moderate status, unfortunately again I believe he has painted himself into a corner during the Primary.  First in taking stronger far-right stances, and second by having people endores him as either a true conservative, or the only conservative, rather than being a moderate.  So, when everyone endorsing you is sitting there and saying "He's a conservative", how do you then go to the general electorate and say "I'm a moderate!" without looking like you're pandering?  You can't. 

If it were the Democrats calling Romney a conservative, then that would be a horse of a different color.  In the 2008 election Republican's tried desperately to paint Obama as a liberal Democrat.  He didn't let that label bother him, and as President he's actually moderate not liberal.  When the label is from without, you can overcome that label, but when it's from within, it's extremely difficult to shuck that label.  "Are we not suppose to trust the word of the people endorsing you?" is the question it raises.  Again, he's in a corner.

Obama cause always bet on black

... You guys, why do you do this to me!? Besides, Fluttershy would never win. Someone would say something mean and hurt her feelings, and she'd exit the race. Pinkie Pie would then come in and destroy all competition, and proceed to end the world.

As for the topic, I don't really think either of them would be good. Exchanging Romney for Obama would result in a drastic shift of how the media portrays things (both sides), and a relatively small shift in how the country is actually run. As far as I'm concerned, they both suck.